Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-epistemology


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Mergers remain possible as an editorial decision. Sandstein 12:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Meta-epistemology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated for AfD without giving any explanation. I slightly suspect this may be original research (no source has been given), but don't know for sure. Tizio 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with epistemology unless it's proven to be a hoax. YechielMan 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, things are deleted unless proven to be true, not the other way around. Tizio 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources. --C56C 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep. There are sources, although it's such an abstruse subject there aren't very many of them. For example "Epistemology Futures" published by Oxford University Press contains a chapter with the delightful title of "What's epistemology for? The case for neopragmatism in normative metaepistemology" . andy 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate area of philosophical study.  Could stand a complete rewrite, though, and should be tagged as such if kept.  Heather 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you two confirm that what's written in this article is not original research, don't you? Tizio 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely (btw I read Philosophy at Cambridge). It's just a clumsily written definition of the subject. andy 16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (And I studied Philosophy at Purdue.)  Heather 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge per YechielMan, and per Merge tag on article. ~ G1ggy!  Reply 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.